...I just have to vent that Avatar is being used as some kind of benchmark.

Click to expand...

And it will be until it's surpassed in any way. Movies are made by people who are in the business of making movies and understand that business, not by fannish critics. They can go ahead and ignore Avatar and become irrelevant; they know that.

Like or loathe Avatar, nobody can question that it sets a whole new standard for future movies, especially movies that are striving for the spectacular, which tend to be wholly or partly in the fantasy genre.

Anyhoo, I'm encouraged that Ridley Scott's involved but, as with George Lucas, I have a sneaking suspicion his best work's far behind him. I don't see him making anything as understated and deeply disturbing as Alien in this day and age. Remember that almost all of the horror was just off-screen, or heard through the coms. I don't think any big budget movie director would dare to be that imaginative (and restrained) nowadays..

I'm encouraged by "really nasty". I was thinking the only way to do this correctly would be to push the horror to the next level (the action angle has been done to death). Maybe I'm reading too much into that statement but I'd like to think that's what he meant.

Don't ask me how you're supposed to one-up the chestburster, but I'd be curious to see it.

Well I'm gladd Scott is involved, but the prequel idea makes me nervous, and God does everything have to be in 3D now?

Click to expand...

Yes, everything that can utilise it well now has to be in 3D because why the hell not? 3D is like 2D but slightly better. It's like saying "why does everything have to have surround sound" (or even just "sound"). This is a big scifi picture which will undoubtedly have some sights that 3D will be great for.

Yes you do. You've thought about it before. You said in the Avatar thread that the only thing that would redeem Avatar were if it were set in the Alien universe.

I'm not keen on redesigning the Alien. A little bit, sure, every film has changed them a little (although the AvP2 ones seem pretty much exactly the same as the ones from Aliens). It needs to be pretty familiar if it can be: big penis shaped head, inner jaw, drooling teeth, bony "bio-mechanical" design, long tail with a blade... once you've got all that I can't see what else you can change and be radically different.

3-D has certainly been lucrative for studios and theatres thus far. Despite mixed reviews which especially warned of the bad 3-D, both Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans were big hits. If the public continues to lap up anything that is 3-D, paying the increased ticket prices for these pictures, then every big-budget studio picture will be released primarily in 3-D in short order.

I had hoped for a public backlash against converted 3-D films, but so far, no such luck. I'm sure Scott's eye for intense visual detail will lend itself well to the format, especially if it begins life in 3-D, but few filmmakers are so gifted/obsessed with such details.

Well I'm gladd Scott is involved, but the prequel idea makes me nervous, and God does everything have to be in 3D now?

Click to expand...

Yes, everything that can utilise it well now has to be in 3D because why the hell not? 3D is like 2D but slightly better. It's like saying "why does everything have to have surround sound" (or even just "sound"). This is a big scifi picture which will undoubtedly have some sights that 3D will be great for.

Yes you do. You've thought about it before. You said in the Avatar thread that the only thing that would redeem Avatar were if it were set in the Alien universe.

I'm not keen on redesigning the Alien. A little bit, sure, every film has changed them a little (although the AvP2 ones seem pretty much exactly the same as the ones from Aliens). It needs to be pretty familiar if it can be: big penis shaped head, inner jaw, drooling teeth, bony "bio-mechanical" design, long tail with a blade... once you've got all that I can't see what else you can change and be radically different.

Click to expand...

Well that might depend on what it's host was for all we know it might burst out of some huge hulking 6 armed alien and take non attributes from said alien like the one in 3 did from the dog.

Well I'm gladd Scott is involved, but the prequel idea makes me nervous, and God does everything have to be in 3D now?

Click to expand...

Yes, everything that can utilise it well now has to be in 3D because why the hell not? 3D is like 2D but slightly better. It's like saying "why does everything have to have surround sound" (or even just "sound"). This is a big scifi picture which will undoubtedly have some sights that 3D will be great for.

Click to expand...

I just don't see it as being slightly better, at least not in its current form. Personally I found watching Avatar tiring, kept having to take the damn glasses off, and I didn't feel like I gained that much by it being in 3D, if anything it seemed jarring, kept constantly reminding me I was watching a film so I didn't feel I could lose myself in the story.

I realise I'm an old luddite who's in a minority here though

A 3D chestbuster on the other hand...hmm, you'd have to do that wouldn't you if you were Scott!